Halifax Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

A diet supplement used by bodybuilders called 6-OXO and 1-AD can trigger seizures and blood clots in the brain that can lead to lasting disability according to a warning issued today by Health Canada.

Both 6-OXO and 1-AD are manufactured by ErgoPharm-Proviant Technologies and are popular among amateur and professional bodybuilders.

CTV news reports that Health Canada has received one report of a serious adverse event that has been linked to use of the supplements. According to the report, a man who had no known health problems suffered seizures and blood clots in his brain after using the supplements.

6-OXO is not approved for sale in Canada, but consumers can buy the supplement over the internet or while travelling in the United States.

1-AD contains an anabolic steroid. That means the supplement is a controlled substance in Canada and can only be purchased by prescription and is supposed to be used only under the supervision of a doctor.

If you are using either of these supplements, you should seek advice from a doctor immediately.

On Monday I had the pleasure of golfing in the Brain Injury Association of Nova Scotia's annual charitable golf tournament.

The event went off without a hitch and I wanted to offer my congratulations to BIANS and their volunteers for making the day a great success.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, June is Brain Injury Awareness Month in Nova Scotia.

Brain Injury is one of the leading causes of injury and death in children. As our weather improves (finally) more children are going to be out riding their bikes, scooters and skateboards. Unfortunately, some of them are going to suffer a brain injury as a result of not wearing proper protective gear.

I am posting this public service announcement from the Virginia Emergency medical Services as a reminder for parents to ensure that your kids wear proper safety gear when they are out having fun.

Have a great...and safe...summer!

Nova Scotia Passes Law to Protect Insurance Company Profits

In 2003 Nova Scotia passed the Automobile Insurance Reform Act (AIRA) to protect the profits of the insurance industry at the expense of innocent accident victims.

"Minor Injury" Cap on Compensation

AIRA caps the amount of compensation that an accident victim can receive for non-pecuniary damages , (what is typically referred to as compensation for pain and suffering), for "minor injuries" at a maximum of $2500.00!

In other words, if you have a "minor injury", as defined by the AIRA law, the most you can receive for your pain and suffering is $2500.00. In many cases the insurance company will offer you less than $2500.00!

Why you may have a "Minor Injury": Reason #2 :

If your injury "resolved" within 12 months of your car accident, it will be considered a "minor injury".

The AIRA law defines a minor injury as any injury that:

...resolves within twelve months following the accident.

What Does Resolves Mean?

Now you and I know what resolves means; it means you are better! If you aren’t better in one year your injury has not “resolved” and you are entitled to more than $2500.00 in compensation. Right?

Wrong! As if things weren’t complicated enough, in an effort to:

Limit the ability of innocent car accident victims to get compensation for their injuries; and

Increase insurance company profits,

the government of Nova Scotia created regulations “defining” what the word “resolves” means.

According to the Minor Injury cap law, "resolves" means...

…does not cause or ceases to cause a serious impairment of an important bodily function which results from a continuing injury of a physical nature to produce substantial interference with the person’s ability to perform their usual daily activities or their regular employment…

In other words, if you are in a car accident and spend 6 months in a body cast and then 5 1/2 months in painful rehabilitation, but you pretty much fully recover within a year, you may be considered to have a minor injury. Your claim for pain and suffering may be capped at $2500.00.

"How Do I Prove My Injury Hasn't Resolved?"

In order to prove that you do NOT have a minor injury you must provide proof that your injury did not "resolve" within 12 months. How do you do that? By having your doctor carefully document the nature and extent of the ongoing effects of your injuries so that he or she can write a report confirming that you have a "serious impairment" that is "physical in nature" and continues to cause "substantial interference" with your "usual daily activities" or your "regular employment".

I will cover all of these requirements in future posts. The most important thing to remember is that just because the insurance company says you have a minor injury does mean that they are correct.

The minor injury cap law is complicated and confusing, even to some lawyers. If you or a family member have been injured in a car accident, make sure you get advice from an experienced Nova Scotia car accident claims lawyer.

Related posts:

Why the Insurance Company Says you have a "Minor Injury": Reason #1

Continue reading "Why the Insurance Company says you have a "Minor Injury": Reason #2" »

Nova Scotia Government Passes Law to Protect Insurance Company Profits

In 2003 Nova Scotia passed the Automobile Insurance Reform Act (AIRA) to protect the profits of the insurance industry at the expense of innocent accident victims.

"Minor Injury" Cap on Compensation

AIRA limits (or caps) the amount of damages that an accident victim can receive for non-pecuniary damages , what is typically referred to as compensation for pain and suffering, for "minor injuries" to a maximum of $2500.00!

In other words, if you have a minor injury, as defined by the AIRA law, the most compensation you can receive for your pain and suffering is $2500.00.

There are many reasons why the insurance company may claim that you have a minor injury.

Reason # 1

Your injury isn't "permanent"

The AIRA law defines a minor injury as every injury that does NOT result in a:

...permanent serious impairment of an important bodily function...

So the first reason the insurance company may say that you have a "minor injury" is because your injury isn't permanent.

That covers a lot of injuries. Think about it: bruises go away, torn muscles repair themselves, broken bones heal. There are few injuries that last forever.

Does Permanent Mean Forever?

In some cases (amputations) it may be obvious that the injury will last forever. But for most injuries the only way to know for sure that your injury is/was permanent is to wait until you die. If you still had the injury when you died, then the injury was truly permanent.

So does that mean you have to wait until you die before you can prove your injury is permanent?

Fortunately that isn't the case.

Various court decisions have considered what the definition of the word permanent means when it comes to personal injury claims.

A victims injuries will be considered to be permanent where there is a “substantial possibility” that the injury will continue into the future: Skinner v. Goulet.

"Permanent" means lasting into the indefinite future without any end limit: Bos v. James

How Do I Prove My Injury Is Permanent?

So the first thing you have to do to prove that you do NOT have a minor injury if provide proof that your injury is "permanent". How do you do that? By having your doctor carefully document the nature and extent of your injuries so that he or she can write a report confirming that there is a "substantial possibility" that your injury will continue into the "indefinite future" without any certain end limit.

There are a number of other reasons that the insurance company may say you have a minor injury, and claim that your compensation should be capped at a maximum of $2500.00. I will cover them all in future posts.

Continue reading "Why the Insurance Company Says you have a "Minor Injury": Reason #1" »

I posted yesterday about the concerns of guards and inmates over asbestos found in the Cape Breton Correctional Facility.

When the announcement was made this week about the presence of asbestos in the jail, Justice Minister Cecil Clarke said all proper procedures had been followed.

"When issues come forward we respond to those and follow the prescribed procedures and policies in place and that's been done," said Clarke.

But yesterday afternoon the union that represents the guards released a document which indicates the government had been aware of asbestos insulation in some provincial institutions as early as 1988!

"It clearly stated that there was asbestos within the heating system of the correctional facility, particularly around the elbows and joints, which are the areas of concern at present day," said union local president Jim Gosse.

The province's code of practice on "Managing Asbestos in Buildings" requires that employees be notified immediately once asbestos is detected in a building.

The Canadian Press has reported that the guards' union maintains that it wasn't informed about the asbestos until it requested a meeting with jail officials on May 14. The meeting was held the next day.

The province knew about the asbestos in the Cape Breton Correctional Facility in 1988. The province's code of practice requires that employees be notified immediately about the presence of asbestos. The guards were not notified until May 14, 2008. Twenty years later!

What were they waiting for?

Asbestos found in the Cape Breton Correctional Facility may have injured the guards and inmates that were exposed to the dangerous cancer causing mineral, according to the union that represents Nova Scotia's jail guards.

The province of Nova Scotia has released air quality test results at the prison which show:

"The reported values were well below the acceptable criteria of 0.1 fibres per cubic centimetre"

Guards and inmates are concerned because exposure to asbestos can cause mesothelioma a deadly form of cancer.

The problem, according to the National Cancer Institute, is that:

"Symptoms of mesothelioma may not appear until 30 to 50 years after exposure to asbestos."

Exposure to asbestos also increases the risk of lung cancer, asbestosis (a noncancerous, chronic lung ailment), and other cancers, such as those of the larynx and kidney.

The province says that exposure levels are "acceptable". The problem with this statement is that there is no scientific evidence to prove that asbestos exposure is safe at any level!

You have to ask yourself what the reaction would be if Nova Scotia's M.L.A.'s found out that there was asbestos in the air in the Legislature. Would they consider any level of asbestos exposure to be "acceptable"?

What do you think?

...since I have been preparing for a month long jury trial that starts next week on behalf of a client who suffered a minor traumatic brain injury (MTBI). I have found the more I prepare, the luckier I am.

MTBI claims are among the most difficult of personal injury claims to prove. By definition, imaging studies (MRI, CT scan, X-ray) are normal. Often there is no loss of consciousness and sometimes the victim has not even suffered a blow to the head.

The effects of MTBI are subtle. It can be difficult to convince a jury that someone who looks so "normal" has suffered a debilitating injury.

If you are looking for more information about MTBI claims, I highly recommend the Traumatic Brain Injury blog by my collegue Bruce Stern. You can take a look here.

You can also find more information at the Brain Injury Association of Canada.

If you are looking for a Halifax personal injury lawyer you can check out our website.

Injury is the leading cause of death and disability among children and adolescents in
Canada. A new report from the Canadian Institute for Health Information indicates that the number of children injured each year in Canada has declined steadily over recent years.

The rate of child injury in 2005–2006 was 36.7 per 10,000 persons, compared to 40.6 per 10,000 persons, in 2001–2002.

The authors of report suggest that the decrease in pediatric injuries could be due to a variety of
factors, including:

Improved injury-prevention programs;
Changing practice patterns with changing hospital admission criteria;
Administrative changes; and
Legislation designed to target child safety concerns.

The leading cause of injury was unintentional falls (37%) with double the number of injuries of the second leading cause of injury, car accidents (18%).

It is perhaps not surprising that car accidents resulted in more serious injuries. The study reports that falls resulted in 24,433 hospital days with an average of 2.3 days required for treatment. Whereas car accidents resulted in 32,118 hospital days with an average hospital stay of 6 days required for treatment.

The leading cause of injury that resulted in death among children and adolescents under age 20 years was car accidents (55.5%).

While the trend towards fewer injuries is encouraging, more study is needed to identify the specific reasons for the decrease so that governments and hospitals can determine how to most effectively spend limited health care and trauma prevention dollars.

You can read the whole report here.